# OK, they're not "enemy combatants." But we can still hold them, no charges, forever. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630 "2009-03-16T16:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/41 "2009-03-17T07:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Given that Obama has been voicing criticism of Bush’s policies re: Guantanamo loudly for at least three years now, probably longer, doesn’t it seem that at some point he should have given thought to the question of what he would do if he was in charge? > > AFAIK there have been no substantive changes to the underlying legal or security situations in the last year. In all that time, they’ve been unable to come up with any better policy – and yet kept on hammering Bush for it. There’s a difference between dismantling a problem and blowing something up. One requires some careful thought and some time and effort to do right. The other is good for people who want immediate gratification without being concerned over what happens next. It took Bush eight years to build the mess this country’s in right now. It’s going to take Obama more than a couple of months to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/42 "2009-03-17T12:00:02Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > If you do something and I criticize you for it, and yet you _get away with it_, you have no business accusing me of hypocrisy for doing the same thing. I am afraid this isn’t true. It doesn’t matter in the least whether I get away with it or not - if you claim something is a moral wrong yet do the same thing, then you are a hypocrite. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/43 "2009-03-17T13:37:09Z")
a) It is a bit ridiculous to compare the situations directly, in terms of evaluating the current president dealing with an issue versus the president who caused it. b) Obama seems to be moving along in the right direction c) But he isn’t out of the woods yet ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/44 "2009-03-17T14:15:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It’s the entire premise of the thread. “But in terms of actual… you know… stuff, it seems to me not so hugely different than Bush’s approach.” You’re pretending that there is no difference between 2 months under Obama and 6+ years under Bush. You, and the other typical cheerleaders, insist on pretending that it is fair to judge the two presidencies at this point. It’s not. On one hand, you have a President who fought almost every single step of offering due process to the detainees; who didn’t try a single one, whose biggest contribution was delay and delay and delay, and whose system for determining the propriety of their detention left a great deal to be desired. On the other, you have a new President just getting up to speed on the classified information about the detainees. And you have the audacity (or more properly the partisan blinders) to pretend they are comparable. > > The similarities between the two are that they have to deal with the same issue, and agree on certain basic things (Presidential power to detain non-citizens). But, beyond that, you’re doing nothing of substance and only trying to score politicial points. What a surprise. That’s not what I’m doing at all. I fully agree that any evaluation of Obama at this stage is premature when compared to an evaluation of eight years of Bush. No doubt about it. I guess I could have made that point explicit, but I really did think it was self-evident. But I also contend that the filing last week was a key decision point. If I could offer an analogy, it’s as though we were heading down the Interstate with Bush at the wheel, and Obama insisting we’re heading in the wrong direction. So the passengers took a vote, and we pulled over and put Obama behind the wheel. Obviously as he starts up, he has no choice but to continue down the highway. But last week’s event was an exit ramp… or maybe one of those gravel pathways in the median… and he didn’t take it. Of course, he could be planning to take a later exit. No question. And he’s only been driving for a few months, not the years and years that Bush was. Still, when an exit comes up, and he’s spent time telling us that if were driving, we wouldn’t be on this highway, then it’s fair to ask why he didn’t take the first opportunity to get off the highway. You can dismiss my questions as “scoring political points” if it makes you feel better. But I started this thread with a quote from the New York Times, which I hope you’ll agree is not exactly known for its rabid right-wing posture. Nor is it the only tome that has expressed disappointment that Obama didn’t take this opportunity to repudiate the detention claims Bush made. So it’s not just Bricker the Rabid Right Wing Point Scoring … er … Person asking these questions. How about you pretend the New York Times posted the OP, and answer them? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/45 "2009-03-17T14:43:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am afraid this isn’t true. It doesn’t matter in the least whether I get away with it or not - if you claim something is a moral wrong yet do the same thing, then you are a hypocrite. > > Regards, > Shodan Right, but that still means that you have no leg to stand on to criticize me for it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/46 "2009-03-17T14:53:56Z")
Looks more like one of those gravel pathways with a No U Turn sign on it. Go another mile, and there’s a nice cloverleaf you can get on and off. The gravel that goes across the center line tends to have nails and metal chunks in it. If you have the time, might as well do it the safe and easy way. I’m seeing that some of these people are no-shit bad people, and they really should go the hell away forever, and Obama is carefully unwinding things to let them all off in appropriate places. As opposed to, you know, stuffing more people in there. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/47 "2009-03-17T15:04:14Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Do you really think this will make a practical difference? That’s not an incredulous ‘really’, by the way. I have no idea how much support Bush’s policies have in Congress these days or who will cave or how badly. Well, the new method does have the benefit of needing a consensus larger than one. That does seem to be a small safeguard against wholesale abuse, and it is an improvement over the executive deciding alone who is protected under the Constitution. That is a refreshing change from the previous administration, no? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/48 "2009-03-17T15:06:40Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Given that Obama has been voicing criticism of Bush’s policies re: Guantanamo loudly for at least three years now, probably longer, doesn’t it seem that at some point he should have given thought to the question of what he would do if he was in charge? He has, and he’s doing it. But he has to determine it on a case by case basis. He can’t just release them all, or keep them all locked up. And making that determination takes a lot of time. Especially given the mess left by Bush. > [@furt](#): > > AFAIK there have been no substantive changes to the underlying legal or security situations in the last year. In all that time, they’ve been unable to come up with any better policy – and yet kept on hammering Bush for it. They already do have a better policy. Actually doing something rather than letting the detainees left just sit there. It’s just you and yours seem to think that he should be able to handle each and every case of the detainees in just a couple months. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/49 "2009-03-17T15:16:48Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Bush didn’t try a single one. Many of the other countries we released prisoners from Guantanamo to, found the time to try them. But we didn’t. How very odd. Can you clarify this a bit? A couple people have been tried by the military commissions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/50 "2009-03-17T15:29:44Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Looks more like one of those gravel pathways with a No U Turn sign on it. Go another mile, and there’s a nice cloverleaf you can get on and off. The gravel that goes across the center line tends to have nails and metal chunks in it. If you have the time, might as well do it the safe and easy way. > > I’m seeing that some of these people are no-shit bad people, and they really should go the hell away forever, and Obama is carefully unwinding things to let them all off in appropriate places. > As opposed to, you know, stuffing more people in there. And that’s a fair rebuttal. Which is why I said, in the OP, “But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better.” This was an invitation to reply with something substantive to support the idea that this _was_ a gravel pathway with a no-U-turn sign and some mud in the tire tracks, and that there’s a paved cloverleaf down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/51 "2009-03-17T15:30:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not what I’m doing at all. Had this thread started with a debate over whether the CinC has the power to detain people indefinitely, I’d be more willing to believe you. But it wasn’t. And your typical use of smarmy comments (“But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better”) and uncited statements that I question the veracity of (“I do have a problem with Obama’s election tactic of appearing to promise he wouldn’t adopt these tactics and then doing so.”), and I concluded that it wasn’t about the power, it was about another of your potshots at Obama. > [@Bricker](#): > > But I also contend that the filing last week was a key decision point. Can you get me a link? I read the article, and I’m not seeing a big conflict. Are you questioning whether or not the President can detain foreign belligerants at all? Because it seems to me that question has been answered for over a couple centuries. > [@Bricker](#): > > You can dismiss my questions as “scoring political points” if it makes you feel better. But I started this thread with a quote from the New York Times, which I hope you’ll agree is not exactly known for its rabid right-wing posture. Nor is it the only tome that has expressed disappointment that Obama didn’t take this opportunity to repudiate the detention claims Bush made. What did you expect? At this point, the filing was a simple assertion of the long recognized fact that the President has the power to detain people in a war. Big shocker there. Why nigh but unheard of I guess. What the real issue is what are we going to do with the detainees we have and any future ones. THAT’S the problem I, and many people had, with Bush. His CSRT’s were … lacking. He didn’t grant them habeas. And he didn’t try a single one. > [@Bricker](#): > > So it’s not just Bricker the Rabid Right Wing Point Scoring … er … Person asking these questions. How about you pretend the New York Times posted the OP, and answer them? What question? Does the President have the power to detain in a war. Well, I didn’t think you needed an answer to that, but the answer has pretty much always been YES. Or was it “Do Obama and Bush agree on that?” Well, that one is pretty easy to answer too. YES. Or was it “Is there any difference between the two?” Other than more references to international law, less emphasis on broad executive powers, and using different words? Nah, not really. Same assertion of the same general power. Is there a major difference between “supporting” the enemy and “substantially supporting” our enemy. Quite possibly, but since “substantially” isn’t decide, we’ll have to wait and see. Glad I could help you out with your “questions”. The answers seemed pretty blatantly obvious. But feel free to ask more if you need help. But I still maintain your missing the REAL issue about Guantanamo (what to do with the detainees) and instead trying to make political hay out of the fact that both Obama and Bush agree with a legal premise that has existed since the founding. But it’s your thread. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/52 "2009-03-17T15:44:15Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Can you clarify this a bit? A couple people have been tried by the military commissions. Sure. I was wrong. I am now aware that there has been one trial and sentencing by military commission. Salim Hamdan was tried, found guilty, sentenced and released to Yemen in November of last year. So, despite my assertion earlier, the Bush administration did manage to try one person by military commission. If you’re aware of others that have been tried in those 6+ years (Hicks pled, which I don’t really count), let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/53 "2009-03-17T15:51:30Z")
This site has the relevant links for people who want to actually read the memo before judging its content: [http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html](http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html). And **Bricker** , if you have a moment, I’d like to know your answers to the questions in post 36. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/54 "2009-03-17T16:01:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Had this thread started with a debate over whether the CinC has the power to detain people indefinitely, I’d be more willing to believe you. But it wasn’t. And your typical use of smarmy comments (“But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better”) and uncited statements that I question the veracity of (“I do have a problem with Obama’s election tactic of appearing to promise he wouldn’t adopt these tactics and then doing so.”), and I concluded that it wasn’t about the power, it was about another of your potshots at Obama. What a good thing I’m now able to correct that misapprehension. > [@](#): > > Glad I could help you out with your “questions”. The answers seemed pretty blatantly obvious. But feel free to ask more if you need help. Here are some questions from the [NYT article:](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?_r=1) > [@NYT](#): > > Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy. > > They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions. > > Ramzi Kassem, a detainees’ lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School, said Friday that the new administration had yet to deal effectively either with efforts to release many of the detainees or to improve the conditions at the camp. Question: are the critics’ concerns justified? Why or why not? From the actual court filing: > [@USDOJ](#): > > Accordingly, under the AUMF, the President has authority to detain persons who he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for the September 11 attacks. The President also has the authority under the AUMF to detain in this armed conflict those persons whose relationship to al-Qaida or the Taliban would, in appropriately analogous circumstances in a traditional international armed conflict, render them detainable. In what way, if any, does this differ from President Bush’s claim of authority stemming from the AUMF? What, if any, are the limits of this authority, and where does the instant submission identify them? > [@Hamlet](#): > > But I still maintain your missing the REAL issue about Guantanamo (what to do with the detainees) and instead trying to make political hay out of the fact that both Obama and Bush agree with a legal premise that has existed since the founding. But it’s your thread. Maybe I’m not remembering things correctly… but without a search, I recall much derision heaped upon Bush on these boards for claiming the AUMF supported these detentions. I welcome correction on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/55 "2009-03-17T16:02:41Z")
Hmm, seems he is deriving his power from the AUMF, so Congress could easily change that if they wanted. Unlike Bush who thought it was his inherent right to do whatever the hell Cheney let him do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/56 "2009-03-17T16:11:49Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Obama has departed from Bush’s War on Terror tactics in a number of areas. Their actions and filings in the _Al-Marri_ case are one concrete example. And one need only read the [latest](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15danner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=torture&st=cse) reports of the torturing detainees under Bush to breath a sigh of relief that Obama is in office instead of Bush. Yes, I agree that Obama has already “taken the highway exit,” as it were, with respect to the torture issue. My clain in this thread relates to the indefinite detention issue, however. But if an explicit acknowledgment of the change in the torture arena helps us to focus on the detention issue, you now have it. > [@](#): > > But let’s examine this particular claim of sameness. **Bricker** argues that Obama is claiming the same detention power as Bush. Bricker, can you cite for me the part of the DOJ’s submission that claims a power to detain indefinitely? Or were you being hyperbolic in your thread title? My reading of the filing is that the Obama Administration claims some not-yet-wholly-defined power to detain under the AUMF and that they are undergoing a complete review to determine the extent and nature of that detention power. Did he disclaim any power to detain non-citizens during the campaign? Can you provide us the quote? My quote from the filing is provided above. In addition: > [@](#): > > Thus, consistent with U.S. historical practice, and international law, the AUMF authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force against members of an opposing armed force, whether that armed force is the force of a state or the irregular forces of an armed group like al-Qaida. Because the use of force includes the power of detention, Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518, the United States has the authority to detain those who were part of al-Qaida and Taliban forces. Indeed, long-standing U.S. jurisprudence, as well as law-of-war principles, recognize that members of enemy forces can be detained even if “they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.” > . > . > . > Moreover, because the armed groups that the President is authorized to detain under the AUMF neither abide by the laws of war nor issue membership cards or uniforms, any determination of whether an individual is part of these forces may depend on a formal or functional analysis of the individual’s role. > . > . > . > Finally, the AUMF is not limited to persons captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Such a limitation “would contradict Congress’s clear intention, and unduly hinder both the President’s ability to protect our country from future acts of terrorism and his ability to gather vital intelligence regarding the capability, operations, and intentions of this elusive and cunning adversary.” (citations omitted). Under a functional analysis, individuals who provide substantial support to al-Qaida forces in other parts of the world may properly be deemed part of al-Qaida itself. Such activities may also constitute the type of substantial support that, in analogous circumstances in a traditional international armed conflict, is sufficient to justify detention. That is as broad-reaching as the power Bish claim, and does not specify any particular end-date. It is thus _indefinite detention_. > [@](#): > > I also note that Obama changed the standard for when someone can be detained from “supported” to “substantially supported.” This prevents the detaining of people who unwittingly or indirectly supported the Taliban. That seems like a step in the right direction. Why do you think that is mere symbolism? Really? > [@](#): > > It is neither possible nor advisable, however, to attempt to identify, in the abstract, the precise nature and degree of “substantial support,” or the precise characteristics of “associated forces,” that are or would be sufficient to bring persons and organizations within the foregoing framework. Now, the very next sentence does say “unwitting” support is not covered, so you’re right on that. But where does “indirect” support get excluded? Nowhere that I can see. And when did Bush claim that unwitting support _was_ groudns for detention? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/57 "2009-03-17T16:12:51Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Hmm, seems he is deriving his power from the AUMF, so Congress could easily change that if they wanted. Unlike Bush who thought it was his inherent right to do whatever the hell Cheney let him do. No. Bush’s argument was precisely the same: the AUMF gave him the power. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/58 "2009-03-17T16:17:30Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > He has, and he’s doing it. But he has to determine it on a case by case basis. He can’t just release them all, or keep them all locked up. And making that determination takes a lot of time. Especially given the mess left by Bush. > > They already do have a better policy. Actually doing something rather than letting the detainees left just sit there. It’s just you and yours seem to think that he should be able to handle each and every case of the detainees in just a couple months. “You and yours?” So quick to the ugly little ad hominem. Just out of curiosity, who do you imagine as “mine?” Do I get to pick who “yours” are, and ascribe their views to you? As Bricker has already pointed out, the question at hand is not about finding a immediate disposition of the people already in custody. Every reasonable person agrees that it will take awhile to sort out each and every case. The issue at hand is that Obama is endorsing the same underlying legal principle of the Bush admin. IANAL, but it seems to me that they could have easily said they supported habeas corpus for detainees, but simultaneously asked for a temporary stay while they sorted things out. They did not do this. Barring that, they could have said that while the current cases were indeed a sticky wicket, going forward they would renounce the Bush approach and treat all future detainees very differently. They did not do this. To repeat the question you ducked: at what point _will_ it be fair to criticize Obama for failing to change policies he campaigned against since Iowa? 6 months? A year? Four? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/59 "2009-03-17T16:39:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I agree that Obama has already “taken the highway exit,” as it were, with respect to the torture issue. My clain in this thread relates to the indefinite detention issue, however. But if an explicit acknowledgment of the change in the torture arena helps us to focus on the detention issue, you now have it. You’re not the only one in the thread, **Brick**. Some of your erstwhile allies are claiming Obama is no different from Bush. > [@Bricker](#): > > My quote from the filing is provided above. In addition . . . that is as broad-reaching as the power Bush claimed. . . Wrong wrong wrong. Bush claimed this authority under Article II in addition to the AUMF. Read the DOJ’s brief in _Boumediene_ if you don’t believe me. I can’t copy and paste from the PDF, otherwise I’d quote it myself. But more importantly, where did Obama disclaim the ability to detain people under the AUMF? Point to the quote for us. You’re alleging a failure to follow his promise, so show us his promise. > [@Bricker](#): > > Now, the very next sentence does say “unwitting” support is not covered, so you’re right on that. But where does “indirect” support get excluded? Nowhere that I can see. And when did Bush claim that unwitting support _was_ grounds for detention? You haven’t been paying attention. He claimed it in 2004 and until he left office: > [@](#): > > This Court explored the government’s position on the matter by posing a series of hypothetical questions to counsel at the December 1, 2004 hearing on the motion to dismiss. In response to the hypotheticals, counsel for the respondents argued that the Executive has the authority to detain the following individuals until the conclusion of the war on terrorism: “[a] little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans in Afghanistan but [what] really is a front to finance al-Qaeda activities,” Transcript at 25, a person who teaches English-to the son of an al Qaeda member, id. at 27, and a journalist who knows the location of Osama Bin Laden but refuses to disclose it to protect her source. Id. at 29. In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005). See also the government briefs in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630/60 "2009-03-17T16:53:39Z")
> [@furt](#): > > IANAL, but it seems to me that they could have easily said they supported habeas corpus for detainees, but simultaneously asked for a temporary stay while they sorted things out. They did not do this. They didn’t need to do it. The detainees in Gitmo have habeas rights. The Supreme Court said so and Obama has endorsed that decision in his January 22 executive order which states: “The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.” > [@furt](#): > > Barring that, they could have said that while the current cases were indeed a sticky wicket, going forward they would renounce the Bush approach and treat all future detainees very differently. They did not do this. They have renounced it in part. Two notable differences are that he linked it solely to the AUMF and he tightened the definition of who can be detained. And they are planning to dispose of the cases in a set time period set by the closing of Gitmo. The real question will arise when they decide what to do with people they want to continue to detain without charges. But that time has not yet come. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-theyre-not-enemy-combatants-but-we-can-still-hold-them-no-charges-forever/489630.md?page=4)